Molecular profiling of BRAF-V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer in the phase 3 BEACON CRC trial.

The BEACON CRC study demonstrated that encorafenib (Enco)+cetuximab (Cetux)±binimetinib (Bini) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus Cetux + chemotherapy in previously treated patients with BRAF-V600E-mutant mCRC, providing the basis for the approval of the Enco+Cetux regimen in the United States and the European Union. A greater understanding of biomarkers predictive of response to Enco+Cetux±Bini treatment is of clinical relevance. In this prespecified, exploratory biomarker analysis of the BEACON CRC study, we characterize genomic and transcriptomic correlates of clinical outcomes and acquired resistance mechanisms through integrated clinical and molecular analysis, including whole-exome and -transcriptome tissue sequencing and circulating tumor DNA genomic profiling. Tumors with higher immune signatures showed a trend towards increased OS benefit with Enco+Bini+Cetux. RAS, MAP2K1 and MET alterations were most commonly acquired with Enco+Cetux±Bini, and more frequent in patients with a high baseline cell-cycle gene signature; baseline TP53 mutation was associated with acquired MET amplification. Acquired mutations were subclonal and polyclonal, with evidence of increased tumor mutation rate with Enco+Cetux±Bini and mutational signatures (SBS17a/b). These findings support treatment with Enco+Cetux±Bini for patients with BRAF-V600E-mutant mCRC and provide insights into the biology of response and resistance to MAPK-pathway-targeted therapy. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02928224.

Treating cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: A practical approach.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common and potentially life-threatening complication in patients with cancer. Both cancer and its treatments increase the risk of developing VTE. Specific cancer types and individual patient comorbidities increase the risk of developing cancer-associated VTE, and the risk of bleeding is increased with anticoagulation therapies. The aims of this article are to summarize the latest evidence for treating cancer-associated VTE, discuss the practical considerations involved, and share best practices for VTE treatment in patients with cancer. The article pays particular attention to challenging contexts including patients with brain, lung, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary tumors and those with hematological malignancies. Furthermore, the article summarizes specific clinical scenarios that require additional treatment considerations, including extremes of body weight, nausea and gastrointestinal disturbances, compromised renal function, and anemia, and touches upon the relevance of drug-drug interactions. Historically, vitamin K antagonists and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) have been used as therapy for cancer-associated VTE. The development of direct oral anticoagulants has provided additional treatment options, which, in certain instances, offer advantages over LMWHs. There are numerous factors that need to be considered when treating cancer-associated VTE, and although various treatment guidelines are helpful, they do not reflect each unique scenario that may arise in clinical practice. This article provides a summary of the latest evidence and a practical approach for treating cancer-associated VTE.

Devimistat (CPI-613) With Modified Fluorouarcil, Oxaliplatin, Irinotecan, and Leucovorin (FFX) Versus FFX for Patients With Metastatic Adenocarcinoma of the Pancreas: The Phase III AVENGER 500 Study.

PURPOSE: Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPC) remains a difficult-to-treat disease. Fluorouarcil, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and leucovorin (FFX) is a standard first-line therapy for mPC for patients with a favorable performance status and good organ function. In a phase I study, devimistat (CPI-613) in combination with modified FFX (mFFX) was deemed safe and exhibited promising efficacy in mPC. METHODS: The AVENGER 500 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03504423) is a global, randomized phase III trial conducted at 74 sites across six countries to investigate the efficacy and safety of devimistat in combination with mFFX (experimental arm) compared with standard-dose FFX (control arm) in treatment-naïve patients with mPC. Treatment, administered in once-every-2-weeks cycles until disease progression or intolerable toxicity, included intravenous devimistat at 500 mg/m2 total per day on days 1 and 3 in the experimental arm. The primary end point of the study was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Five hundred and twenty-eight patients were randomly assigned (266 in the experimental arm and 262 in the control arm). The median OS was 11.10 months for devimistat plus mFFX versus 11.73 months for FFX (hazard ratio [HR], 0.95 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.18]; P = .655) and median progression-free survival was 7.8 months versus 8.0 months, respectively (HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.29]; P = .94). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events with >10% frequency in the devimistat plus mFFX arm versus the FFX arm were neutropenia (29.0% v 34.5%), diarrhea (11.2% v 19.6%), hypokalemia (13.1% v 14.9%), anemia (13.9% v 13.6%), thrombocytopenia (11.6% v 13.6%), and fatigue (10.8% v 11.5%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Devimistat in combination with mFFX did not improve long- and short-term mPC patient outcomes compared with standard FFX. There were no new toxicity signals with the addition of devimistat.

Multidisciplinary Delphi Consensus on Safety of Combining Transarterial Radioembolization with Yttrium-90 Microspheres with Systemic Anticancer Agents for the Treatment of Liver Malignancy.

PURPOSE: To provide guidance, via multidisciplinary consensus statements, on the safety interactions between systemic anticancer agents (such as radiosensitizing chemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapy, and peptide receptor radionuclide therapy) and transarterial radioembolization (TARE) with yttrium-90 (90Y)-labeled microspheres in the treatment of primary and metastatic liver malignancies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search identified 59 references that informed 26 statements on the safety of 90Y TARE combined with systemic therapies. Modified Delphi method was used to develop consensus on statements through online anonymous surveys of the 12 panel members representing the fields of interventional radiology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, hepatology, and pharmacy, focusing on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), neuroendocrine tumors, metastatic breast cancer, and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. RESULTS: High-level evidence was limited. Level 1 data in patients with mCRC suggest that some radiosensitizing chemotherapies (eg, oxaliplatin) require temporary dose reduction when used concomitantly with 90Y TARE, and some targeted therapies (eg, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors and antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors) should be avoided for at least 4 weeks before 90Y TARE. In patients with HCC, the feasibility of 90Y TARE and immunotherapy has been demonstrated with Level 4 evidence. Data are more limited for other primary and secondary liver malignancies, and consensus statements were driven by expert opinion (Level 5). CONCLUSIONS: Given the absence of evidence-based guidelines on the safety of 90Y TARE in combination with systemic anticancer therapy, these consensus statements provide expert guidance on the potential risks when considering specific combinations.

Prognostic value of liver metastases in colorectal cancer treated by systemic therapy: An ARCAD pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: The liver is the most frequent site of metastases in colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to assess the response rate and survival outcomes in metastatic CRC patients with non-liver metastases (NLM) compared to those with liver metastases (LM) across different lines of treatment. METHODS: A total of 17,924 mCRC patients included in 26 trials from the ARCAD CRC database were analyzed. The analysis was conducted based on the presence or absence of LM across different treatment groups: chemotherapy (CT) alone, CT + anti-VEGF, CT + anti-EGFR in KRAS wild-type tumors, within the first-line (1 L) and second-line (2 L), and patients enrolled in third-line (≥3 L) trials treated with trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib or placebo. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Out of the 17,924 patients, 14,066 had LM (30.6 % with only liver involvement and 69.4 % with liver and other metastatic sites), while 3858 patients had NLM. In the CT alone and CT + anti-VEGF subgroups, NLM patients showed better OS and PFS in the 1 L and 2 L settings. However, in the CT + anti-EGFR 1 L and 2 L subgroups, there was no significant difference in OS and PFS between NLM and LM patients. In the ≥ 3 L subgroups, better OS and PFS were observed in NLM patients. ORRs were higher in LM patients than in NLM patients across all cohorts treated in the 1 L and only in the anti-EGFR cohort in the 2 L. CONCLUSION: LM is a poor prognostic factor for mCRC increasing from 1 L to ≥ 3 L except for patients in 1 L and 2 L receiving CT+anti-EGFR. These data justify using LM as a stratification factor in future trials for patients with unresectable mCRC.

Clinical impact of using [18F]AlF-NOTA-octreotide PET/CT instead of [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-SSA PET/CT: Secondary endpoint analysis of a multicenter, prospective trial.

[18F]AlF-NOTA-octreotide ([18F]AlF-OC) is a promising alternative for [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-somatostatin analogs (SSAs) in positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of the somatostatin receptor (SSTR). Our aim is to assess changes in TNM staging and differences in patient management between [18F]AlF-OC PET/CT and [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-SSA PET/CT in the work-up of neuroendocrine tumor (NET) patients. Patients who underwent both [18F]AlF-OC and [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-TATE or [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-NOC PET/CT in our multicenter study (Pauwels et al., J Nucl Med.2023;63:632-638) with a NET were included for analysis. TNM staging was determined and compared for both tracers. For each patient, the blinded [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-SSA or [18F]AlF-OC PET/CT images were presented in random order at a multidisciplinary team board. The images were presented together with clinical information and compared with previous SSTR and [18F]FDG PET/CT imaging. After a consensus decision for patient management was recorded, the board was presented with the PET/CT images from the other SSTR tracer and a decision was made for the second tracer. Differences in management were classified as major if it entailed an intermodality change and minor if it led to an intramodality change. Compared with [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-SSA, the use of [18F]AlF-OC led to a change in 16/75 patients: TNM staging changes in 10/75 patients (13.3%; downstaging in 3/10, upstaging in 7/10) and differences in clinical management were seen in 10/75 patients (13.3%), leading to a major difference in 7/10 cases and a minor change in 3/10 cases. All 10 cases with a difference in patient management between both PET tracers were caused by additional lesion detection by [18F]AlF-OC. The use of [18F]AlF-OC did not impact TNM staging or clinical management in the large majority of the patients (86.7%), further validating the potential for routine clinical use of [18F]AlF-OC PET/CT as an alternative for [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-SSA PET/CT. The trial is registered under ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04552847 and EudraCT 2020-000549-15.

Nivolumab plus relatlimab in patients with previously treated microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer: the phase II CheckMate 142 study.

BACKGROUND: Programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors, including nivolumab, have demonstrated long-term survival benefit in previously treated patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). PD-1 and lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) are distinct immune checkpoints that are often co-expressed on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and contribute to tumor-mediated T-cell dysfunction. Relatlimab is a LAG-3 inhibitor that has demonstrated efficacy in combination with nivolumab in patients with melanoma. Here, we present the results from patients with MSI-H/dMMR metastatic CRC treated with nivolumab plus relatlimab in the CheckMate 142 study. METHODS: In this open-label, phase II study, previously treated patients with MSI-H/dMMR metastatic CRC received nivolumab 240 mg plus relatlimab 160 mg intravenously every 2 weeks. The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: A total of 50 previously treated patients received nivolumab plus relatlimab. With median follow-up of 47.4 (range 43.9-49.2) months, investigator-assessed ORR was 50% (95% CI 36% to 65%) and disease control rate was 70% (95% CI 55% to 82%). The median time to response per investigator was 2.8 (range 1.3-33.1) months, and median duration of response was 42.7 (range 2.8-47.0+) months. The median progression-free survival per investigator was 27.5 (95% CI 5.3 to 43.7) months with a progression-free survival rate at 3 years of 38%, and median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 17.2 months to not estimable), with a 56% overall survival rate at 3 years. The most common any-grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were diarrhea (24%), asthenia (16%), and hypothyroidism (12%). Grade 3 or 4 TRAEs were reported in 14% of patients, and TRAEs of any grade leading to discontinuation were observed in 8% of patients. No treatment-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus relatlimab provided durable clinical benefit and was well tolerated in previously treated patients with MSI-H/dMMR metastatic CRC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02060188.

First-Line Nivolumab and Relatlimab Plus Chemotherapy for Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: The Phase II RELATIVITY-060 Study.

PURPOSE: Open-label phase II study (RELATIVITY-060) to investigate the efficacy and safety of first-line nivolumab, a PD-1-blocking antibody, plus relatlimab, a lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3)-blocking antibody, plus chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated advanced gastric cancer (GC) or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC). METHODS: Patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic GC/GEJC were randomly assigned 1:1 to nivolumab + relatlimab (fixed-dose combination) + chemotherapy or nivolumab + chemotherapy. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR; per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review [BICR]) in patients whose tumors had LAG-3 expression ≥1%. RESULTS: Of 274 patients, 138 were randomly assigned to nivolumab + relatlimab + chemotherapy and 136 to nivolumab + chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 11.9 months. In patients with LAG-3 expression ≥1%, BICR-assessed ORR (95% CI) was 48% (38 to 59) in the nivolumab + relatlimab + chemotherapy arm and 61% (51 to 71) in the nivolumab + chemotherapy arm; median progression-free survival (95% CI) by BICR was 7.0 months (5.8 to 8.4) versus 8.3 months (6.9 to 12.1; hazard ratio [HR], 1.41 [95% CI, 0.97 to 2.05]), and median overall survival (95% CI) was 13.5 months (11.9 to 19.1) versus 16.0 months (10.9 to not estimable; HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.70 to 1.54]), respectively. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 69% and 61% of all treated patients, and 42% and 36% of patients discontinued because of any-grade TRAEs in the nivolumab + relatlimab + chemotherapy and nivolumab + chemotherapy arms, respectively. CONCLUSION: RELATIVITY-060 did not meet its primary end point of improved ORR in patients with LAG-3 expression ≥1% when relatlimab was added to nivolumab + chemotherapy compared with nivolumab + chemotherapy. Further studies are needed to address whether adding anti-LAG-3 to anti-PD-1 plus chemotherapy can benefit specific GC/GEJC patient subgroups.

European clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer (OMEC-4)

The OligoMetastatic Esophagogastric Cancer (OMEC) project aims to provide clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of esophagogastric oligometastatic disease (OMD). Guidelines were developed according to AGREE II and GRADE principles. Guidelines were based on a systematic review (OMEC-1), clinical case discussions (OMEC-2), and a Delphi consensus study (OMEC-3) by 49 European expert centers for esophagogastric cancer. OMEC identified patients for whom the term OMD is considered or could be considered. Disease-free interval (DFI) was defined as the time between primary tumor treatment and detection of OMD. Moderate to high quality of evidence was found (i.e. 1 randomized and 4 non-randomized phase II trials) resulting in moderate recommendations. OMD is considered in esophagogastric cancer patients with 1 organ with ≤ 3 metastases or 1 involved extra-regional lymph node station. In addition, OMD continues to be considered in patients with OMD without progression in number of metastases after systemic therapy. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging is recommended for baseline staging and for restaging after systemic therapy when local treatment is considered. For patients with synchronous OMD or metachronous OMD and a DFI ≤ 2 years, recommended treatment consists of systemic therapy followed by restaging to assess suitability for local treatment. For patients with metachronous OMD and DFI > 2 years, upfront local treatment is additionally recommended. These multidisciplinary European clinical practice guidelines for the uniform definition, diagnosis and treatment of esophagogastric OMD can be used to standardize inclusion criteria in future clinical trials and to reduce variation in treatment.

Binimetinib in combination with nivolumab or nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with previously treated microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS mutations in an open-label phase 1b/2 study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with previously treated RAS-mutated microsatellite-stable (MSS) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), a multicenter open-label phase 1b/2 trial was conducted to define the safety and efficacy of the MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor binimetinib in combination with the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) nivolumab (anti-PD-1) or nivolumab and another ICI, ipilimumab (anti-CTLA4). METHODS: In phase 1b, participants were randomly assigned to Arm 1A (binimetinib 45 mg twice daily [BID] plus nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks [Q4W]) or Arm 1B (binimetinib 45 mg BID plus nivolumab 480 mg Q4W and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 8 weeks [Q8W]) to determine the maximum tolerable dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of binimetinib. The MTD/RP2D was defined as the highest dosage combination that did not cause medically unacceptable dose-limiting toxicities in more than 35% of treated participants in Cycle 1. During phase 2, participants were randomly assigned to Arm 2A (binimetinib MTD/RP2D plus nivolumab) or Arm 2B (binimetinib MTD/RP2D plus nivolumab and ipilimumab) to assess the safety and clinical activity of these combinations. RESULTS: In phase 1b, 21 participants were randomized to Arm 1A or Arm 1B; during phase 2, 54 participants were randomized to Arm 2A or Arm 2B. The binimetinib MTD/RP2D was determined to be 45 mg BID. In phase 2, no participants receiving binimetinib plus nivolumab achieved a response. Of the 27 participants receiving binimetinib, nivolumab, and ipilimumab, the overall response rate was 7.4% (90% CI: 1.3, 21.5). Out of 75 participants overall, 74 (98.7%) reported treatment-related adverse events (AEs), of whom 17 (22.7%) reported treatment-related serious AEs. CONCLUSIONS: The RP2D binimetinib regimen had a safety profile similar to previous binimetinib studies or nivolumab and ipilimumab combination studies. There was a lack of clinical benefit with either drug combination. Therefore, these data do not support further development of binimetinib in combination with nivolumab or nivolumab and ipilimumab in RAS-mutated MSS mCRC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03271047 (09/01/2017).

European clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer (OMEC-4).

INTRODUCTION: The OligoMetastatic Esophagogastric Cancer (OMEC) project aims to provide clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of esophagogastric oligometastatic disease (OMD). METHODS: Guidelines were developed according to AGREE II and GRADE principles. Guidelines were based on a systematic review (OMEC-1), clinical case discussions (OMEC-2), and a Delphi consensus study (OMEC-3) by 49 European expert centers for esophagogastric cancer. OMEC identified patients for whom the term OMD is considered or could be considered. Disease-free interval (DFI) was defined as the time between primary tumor treatment and detection of OMD. RESULTS: Moderate to high quality of evidence was found (i.e. 1 randomized and 4 non-randomized phase II trials) resulting in moderate recommendations. OMD is considered in esophagogastric cancer patients with 1 organ with ≤ 3 metastases or 1 involved extra-regional lymph node station. In addition, OMD continues to be considered in patients with OMD without progression in number of metastases after systemic therapy. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging is recommended for baseline staging and for restaging after systemic therapy when local treatment is considered. For patients with synchronous OMD or metachronous OMD and a DFI ≤ 2 years, recommended treatment consists of systemic therapy followed by restaging to assess suitability for local treatment. For patients with metachronous OMD and DFI > 2 years, upfront local treatment is additionally recommended. DISCUSSION: These multidisciplinary European clinical practice guidelines for the uniform definition, diagnosis and treatment of esophagogastric OMD can be used to standardize inclusion criteria in future clinical trials and to reduce variation in treatment.

Efficacy and Safety of Trifluridine/Tipiracil-Containing Combinations in Colorectal Cancer and Other Advanced Solid Tumors: A Systematic Review.

We performed a systematic literature review to identify and summarize data from studies reporting clinical efficacy and safety outcomes for trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) combined with other antineoplastic agents in advanced cancers, including metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We conducted a systematic search on May 29, 2021, for studies reporting one or more efficacy or safety outcome with FTD/TPI-containing combinations. Our search yielded 1378 publications, with 38 records meeting selection criteria: 35 studies of FTD/TPI-containing combinations in mCRC (31 studies second line or later) and 3 studies in other tumor types. FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab was extensively studied, including 19 studies in chemorefractory mCRC. Median overall survival ranged 8.6-14.4 months and median progression-free survival 3.7-6.8 months with FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab in refractory mCRC. Based on one randomized and several retrospective studies, FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab was associated with improved outcomes compared with FTD/TPI monotherapy. FTD/TPI combinations with chemotherapy or other targeted agents were reported in small early-phase studies; preliminary data indicated higher antitumor activity for certain combinations. Overall, no safety concerns existed with FTD/TPI combinations; most common grade ≥ 3 adverse event was neutropenia, ranging 5%-100% across all studies. In studies comparing FTD/TPI combinations with monotherapy, grade ≥ 3 neutropenia appeared more frequently with combinations (29%-67%) vs. monotherapy (5%-41%). Discontinuation rates due to adverse events ranged 0%-11% for FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab and 0%-17% with other combinations. This systematic review supports feasibility and safety of FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab in refractory mCRC. Data on non-bevacizumab FTD/TPI combinations remain preliminary and need further validation.

Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors for metastatic colorectal cancer with microsatellite instability in second or latter line using synthetic control arms: A non-randomised evaluation.

PURPOSE: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) appeared active in single-arm trials for patients with chemoresistant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) harboring microsatellite instability (MSI). Given the paucity of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this setting, we evaluated the effect size of ICIs using intra-patients comparison and ARCAD database as historical controls. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual-patient data from NIPICOL and CheckMate 142 phase II trials that evaluated a combination of ICIs for MSI mCRC patients (N = 176) and from five non-ICI mCRC historical RCTs in second-line or latter (N = 4026) were analyzed. Firstly, promising of ICIs was identified using intra-patient comparison based on growth modulation index (GMI) defined the ratio of progression-free survivals (PFS) on ICIs and previous line of therapy. Survival outcomes of ICIs-treated patients were then compared with those matched non-ICIs treated from ARCAD database historical RCTs. RESULTS: Among ICIs-treated patients, median PFS on ICIs was 32.66 (range 0.10-74.25) versus 4.07 months (range 0.7-49.87) on prior therapy, resulting on median GMI of 4.97 (range 0.07-59.51; hazard-ratio (HR)= 0.16 (95 %CI=0.11-0.22, P < 0.001)). Compared to matched non-ICI patients, in third-line, median overall survival (OS) was not reached with ICIs versus 3.52 months with placebo (HR=0.20, 95 %CI=0.10-0.41, P < 0.001), and 6.51 months with active drugs (HR=0.30, 95 %CI=0.15-0.60, P = 0.001). In second-line, median OS was not reached with ICIs versus 11.7 months with chemotherapy+placebo (HR=0.12, 95 %CI=0.07-0.22, P < 0.001), and 16.3 months with chemotherapy+targeted therapy (HR=0.10, 95 %CI=0.05-0.19, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: ICIs demonstrates high effect size for MSI mCRC patients in second-line and later. This work might be useful as an example of methodology to avoid RCTs when benefit from experimental therapy is likely to be high.

Tislelizumab in advanced/metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: health-related quality of life in Asian patients.

OBJECTIVE: Post-hoc analysis examined health-related quality of life and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) symptoms in the Asian subgroup of patients in RATIONALE-302 (NCT03430843). METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to either tislelizumab or investigator-chosen chemotherapy (paclitaxel, docetaxel, or irinotecan). Health-related quality of life was measured using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the QLQ-OES18. Least-squares mean score changes from baseline to weeks 12 and 18 in health-related quality-of-life scores were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measurements. Reported nominal p-values are for descriptive purposes only. RESULTS: Of the 512 patients, this analysis was conducted in 392 Asian patients (tislelizumab, n = 192; investigator-chosen chemotherapy, n = 200). The tislelizumab arm had stable global health status/quality of life, but fatigue scores worsened in both arms. The change from baseline was similar for physical functioning in both arms at weeks 12 and 18. Eating and dysphagia scores remained stable in the tislelizumab arm. Reflux improved at week 12 in the tislelizumab arm and worsened in the investigator-chosen chemotherapy arm. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the health-related quality of life and ESCC-related symptoms of patients receiving tislelizumab in the Asian subgroup remained stable or improved, while patients receiving investigator-chosen chemotherapy experienced worsening. These results in Asian patients corroborate the findings in the intent-to-treat population, suggesting tislelizumab is a potential new second-line treatment option for patients with advanced or metastatic ESCC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The RATIONALE-302 study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03430843.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in locally advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal cancer (KEYNOTE-585): an interim analysis of the multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of combination neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibition in patients with locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma is unknown. We assess the antitumor activity of neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: The KEYNOTE-585 study is a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 study done at 143 medical centres in 24 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with untreated, locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive voice response system and integrated web response system to neoadjuvant pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously or placebo (saline) plus cisplatin-based doublet chemotherapy (main cohort) every 3 weeks for 3 cycles, followed by surgery, adjuvant pembrolizumab or placebo plus chemotherapy for 3 cycles, then adjuvant pembrolizumab or placebo for 11 cycles. A small cohort was also randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab or placebo plus fluorouracil, docetaxel, and oxaliplatin (FLOT)-based chemotherapy (FLOT cohort) every 2 weeks for four cycles, followed by surgery, adjuvant pembrolizumab, or placebo plus FLOT for four cycles, then adjuvant pembrolizumab or placebo for 11 cycles. Patients were stratified by geographic region, tumour stage, and chemotherapy backbone. Primary endpoints were pathological complete response (reviewed centrally), event-free survival (reviewed by the investigator), and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population, and safety assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03221426, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Oct 9, 2017, and Jan 25, 2021, of 1254 patients screened, 804 were randomly assigned to the main cohort, of whom 402 were assigned to the pembrolizumab plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy group and 402 to the placebo plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy group, and 203 to the FLOT cohort, of whom 100 were assigned to the pembrolizumab plus FLOT group and 103 to placebo plus FLOT group. In the main cohort of 804 participants, 575 (72%) were male and 229 (28%) were female. In the main cohort, after median follow-up of 47·7 months (IQR 38·0-54·8), pembrolizumab was superior to placebo for pathological complete response (52 [12·9%; 95% CI 9·8-16·6] of 402 vs eight [2·0%; 0·9-3·9] of 402; difference 10·9%, 95% CI 7·5 to 14·8; p<0·00001). Median event-free survival was longer with pembrolizumab versus placebo (44·4 months, 95% CI 33·0 to not reached vs 25·3 months, 20·6 to 33·9; hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·67 to 0·99; p=0·0198) but did not meet the threshold for statistical significance (p=0·0178). Median overall survival was 60·7 months (95% CI 51·5 to not reached) in the pembrolizumab group versus 58·0 months (41·5 to not reached) in the placebo group (HR 0·90, 95% CI 0·73 to 1·12; p=0·174). Grade 3 or worse adverse events of any cause occurred in 312 (78%) of 399 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 297 (74%) of 400 patients in the placebo group; the most common were nausea (240 [60%] vs 247 [62%]), anaemia (168 [42%] vs 158 [40%]), and decreased appetite (163 [41%] vs 172 [43%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 102 (26%) and 97 (24%) patients. Treatment-related adverse events that led to death occurred in four (1%) patients in the pembrolizumab group (interstitial ischaemia, pneumonia, decreased appetite, and acute kidney injury [n=1 each]) and two (<1%) patients in the placebo group (neutropenic sepsis and neutropenic colitis [n=1 each]). INTERPRETATION: Although neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo improved the pathological complete response, it did not translate to significant improvement in event-free survival in patients with untreated, locally advanced resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal cancer. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

PD-1- CD45RA+ effector-memory CD8 T cells and CXCL10+ macrophages are associated with response to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

The combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo/bev) has dramatically changed the treatment landscape of advanced HCC (aHCC), achieving durable responses in some patients. Using single-cell transcriptomics, we characterize the intra-tumoural and peripheral immune context of patients with aHCC treated with atezo/bev. Tumours from patients with durable responses are enriched for PDL1+ CXCL10+ macrophages and, based on cell-cell interaction analysis, express high levels of CXCL9/10/11 and are predicted to attract peripheral CXCR3+ CD8+ effector-memory T cells (CD8 TEM) into the tumour. Based on T cell receptor sharing and pseudotime trajectory analysis, we propose that CD8 TEM preferentially differentiate into clonally-expanded PD1- CD45RA+ effector-memory CD8+ T cells (CD8 TEMRA) with pronounced cytotoxicity. In contrast, in non-responders, CD8 TEM remain frozen in their effector-memory state. Finally, in responders, CD8 TEMRA display a high degree of T cell receptor sharing with blood, consistent with their patrolling activity. These findings may help understand the possible mechanisms underlying response to atezo/bev in aHCC.

Intra-individual qualitative and quantitative comparison of [68Ga]Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT and PET/MRI.

Background: Somatostatin receptor (SSTR) positron emission tomography (PET) is a cornerstone of neuroendocrine tumor (NET) management. Hybrid PET/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is now available for NET-imaging, next to PET/computed tomography (CT). Objectives: To determine whether CT or MRI is the best hybrid partner for [68Ga]Ga-DOTATATE PET. Design: Monocentric, prospective study. Methods: Patients received a same-day [68Ga]Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT and subsequent PET/MRI, for suspicion of NET, (re)staging or peptide receptor radionuclide therapy-selection. The union (PETunion) of malignant lesions detected on PETCT and PETMRI was the reference standard. Concordance of detection of malignant lesions in an organ was measured between PETunion and CT and PETunion and MRI. Seven bins were used to categorize the number of malignant lesions, containing following ordinal variables: 0, 1, 2-5, 6-10, 11-20, >20 countable and diffuse/uncountable. The difference in number of malignant lesions was obtained as the difference in bin level ('Δbin') between PETunion and CT and PETunion and MRI with a Δbin closer to zero implying a higher concordance rate. Results: Twenty-nine patients were included. Primary tumors included 17 gastroenteropancreatic-NETs, 1 colon neuroendocrine carcinoma, 7 lung-NETs and 2 meningiomas. Patient level concordance with PETunion was 96% for MRI and 67% for CT (p = 0.039). Organ level concordance with PETunion was 74% for MRI and 40% for CT (p < 0.0001). In bone, there was a higher concordance rate for MRI compared to CT, 92% and 33%, respectively (p = 0.016). Overall, a mean Δbin of 0.5 ± 1.1 for PETunion/MRI and 1.4 ± 1.2 for PETunion/CT (p < 0.0001) was noted. In liver, a mean Δbin of 0.0 ± 1.1 for PETunion/MRI and 1.7 ± 1.2 for PETunion/CT was observed (p = 0.0078). In bone, a mean Δbin closer to zero was observed for PETunion/MRI compared to PETunion/CT, 0.6 ± 1.4 and 2.0 ± 1.5, respectively (p = 0.0098). Conclusions: Compared to SSTR PET/CT, SSTR PET/MRI had a higher patient and organ level concordance for malignant tumoral involvement and number of malignant lesions, with a clear added value in bone and liver specifically.